What is wrong with race class limits?

I never had much of a problem with class limits. I still use them in my C&C game. Level limits were a little iffy, but as stated earlier, the demihuman races had plenty of other advantages.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Crothian said:
A lot of people have seemed to complain on the race class limits of the earlier editions. Why were they bad?

Was it because they were poorly explained as to why certain races and classes had limits? Would it have been better if for instance it was built into the game that halflings had pissed off the god of magic and there fore could not use any arcane magic? Would that kind of explanation for race class limits in the game and setting make them okay?

Quite simply, they were an awful way of balancing non-humans with humans. Who wants to have a limit in the rules that forces them out of a higher-level campaign or into being a thief (the only class where most classes had unlimited advancement)?

3E's version of balancing humans with non-humans is, I think, far better. There are good, positive reasons for playing a human (an extra feat and extra skill points) that are attractive compared to non-human benefits. And positive reasons for playing a particular type of character are better than negative reasons for not playing other types of characters.
I also think that the favored class rule is also better than earlier editions. Rather than preventing certain characters from being legal outright, it makes development down a particular path easier. Again, a positive reason to play a certain type of character, rather than a negative reason to not play something else.
 

Hrmpf. I don't want to highjack this thread, but this reminds me a lot of my biggest problem with 3rd edition: Dwarven wizards.

Not because there are dwarven wizards at all... but the rules make them better than elven wizards and to me that would result in more dwarven wizards in the world than elven wizards.

To say it with the words of your thread: I want my rules in such a way that they logically reproduce the flavor of the fantasy settings.

The old racial limitations were railroading to keep people playing the classes and races like "it should be".

I don't like railroading, I like rules sets that favor someone who's playing by the rules.
 

3E's version of balancing humans with non-humans is, I think, far better. There are good, positive reasons for playing a human (an extra feat and extra skill points) that are attractive compared to non-human benefits. And positive reasons for playing a particular type of character are better than negative reasons for not playing other types of characters.
I also think that the favored class rule is also better than earlier editions. Rather than preventing certain characters from being legal outright, it makes development down a particular path easier. Again, a positive reason to play a certain type of character, rather than a negative reason to not play something else

Hrmpf. I don't want to highjack this thread, but this reminds me a lot of my biggest problem with 3rd edition: Dwarven wizards.

C'mon guys, the thread was about how 1e/2e/OD&D did (or did not) do something in particular. Not whether or not 3e does it better or does it at all.
 

thedungeondelver said:
C'mon guys, the thread was about how 1e/2e/OD&D did (or did not) do something in particular. Not whether or not 3e does it better or does it at all.
Ok, I try to be more clear. For me it's the same problem. Railroading.

Rules that don't make sense. IMHO 1e/2e/OD&D shining example for railroading rules were these racial limits. I didn't like them, I don't like them now.

Okok, I admit it WAS a threadjack.
 

Crothian said:
Would that kind of explanation for race class limits in the game and setting make them okay?


No. Classes are sets of skills, and I can't imagine a good explanation as to why members of a certain race are unable to learn a certain skill, or are only able to learn a skill "up to a certain point."

It's like saying that elves can't learn to craft horseshoes or half-orcs can't learn to move silently.
 

Yeah, it's stupid when the rules limit what characters can do!

It's only right that every player should have all the KEWEL POWERZ of their choice. And my fiendish half-grell half-myconid paladin/assassin/bard/ranger/monk makes much more sense than those stupid rules.

/sarcasm
 

Nifft said:
There's nothing wrong with it -- in a setting, where "pissed off god of magic" is cool.

I don't like that kind of thing in the Core rules, though. My setting should be mine. Give me parts that work well and are balanced, and let me decide how to abuse them. :)

Cheers, -- N

Exactly. A lot of things seemed to work that way back then: Rule X said that you can't do Y, but extra book Z gave you a variant that circumvented the limit. Like Elves not allowed to become bards (as asinine as that was), but then all of a sudden, they break out the Elven Minstrel.

Bad rule design that seemed to have been done mostly in order to sell those extra books.

D&D is all about "Tools, not Rules". If D&D had a built-in setting that can't be changed, I might be okay with it, but D&D prides itself to be playable in many settings, including those you create for yourself.


Concerning the level limits: They're rubbish no matter what. They're neither here nor there. If you play only low-level campaigns (and in older editions, that was quite likely), many of those limits would never come into play. And many of these limits didn't even make sense.
 

thedungeondelver said:
C'mon guys, the thread was about how 1e/2e/OD&D did (or did not) do something in particular. Not whether or not 3e does it better or does it at all.

So it's not kosher to compare the earlier editions' short-comings with an edition that does a better job to help illustrate the answer to the original question?
 

I didn't have a whole lot of problem with the level limits, honestly. The only real issue was that such a character would reach a dead end, development-wise, which could be problematic. But, in my group's experience, by that time we were ready to play other characters anyway.

I think that the statement that level limits is a setting element, rather than a rules element, isn't a powerful argument. Even today, most games don't differentiate between setting and rules at all, and they are still fine games.
 

Remove ads

Top